Suggestions and links

[Ninja2dan]

I am still fairly new to PR, and while trying to search for some suggestions I have to see what has and hasn't already been suggested, I'm seeing several in the same genre are listed on the Already Suggested topic. I'm having trouble finding those previous posts though, to see if my suggestions are the same. Most of those listed do not have a folowup link associated with it, and many of the search results are listing hundreds of topics that barely fit my question.

I would like to list some of my ideas here, some are probably already suggested before. If anyone can reply with links to the best-suited previous topic I would greatly appreciate it. I will list my base summary of that idea, so that others may help by posting a link to the closest-related topic. I'm not lazy, but I have spent that past 3 hours straight looking up this stuff and have only found a couple similar ideas out of thousands of topics. My eyes and brain hurt from much of the garbage I read that was in no way related, yet somehow turned up in the search results.

1) Artillery - Seeing the limited number of players for all maps, regular artillery would probably not be advisable. If artillery were to be implemented, I think the best method would be a single squad of crewmen who operate no more than 3 spawnable and destroyable assets, such as an M109 SP Howitzer. Any artillery should be manually operated, and based on current map sizes I think mortars would be better suited. I am under the impression from so many other posts that mortars are already being worked on, can anyone give me some feedback on how that's going and how they plan to implement it? As a formar FA soldier, I'm interested in this aspect.

2) IFV/BFV's - I would like to know that status of creating an M2 or M3 Bradley for use on some maps in place of or in addition to some of the current APC's. There are a few maps where the use of armor is heavy, yet there is few anti-armor support available. Having a limited number of Bradleys (and their OpFor counterparts) on hand would improve the battles in my opinion. They would also be useful in other maps where armor is not desired yet in IFV is recommended. M3's would be oustanding for their real role as an armored scout vehicle on the larger maps with joint support.

3) Destructable cities - I am loving the maps that feature destructable buildings, but still have little knowledge on what affect those buildings cause on lag or map performance. Would it be possible to create a whole city using similar buildings, or would it cause substantial lag? And are the modellers working on other designs of destructable buildings/objects for future maps? The buildings in use now are few and limited, it would be nice to see more floorplans in the future.

4) No-fly zones - Is it possible to place a no-fly zone on a map, that will allow normal vehicles and ground troops to remain inside it yet force aircraft to remain out? There are a few map ideas that I have which would require such zones, but I will not bring those suggestions up on the forums if this option is not possible due to coding or engine limitations.

5) Claymores - Are there any plans in the future to add realistic claymores to the game? I'm talking about REAL claymores, clacker-fired and directional. Issued to a specialized kit and in limited supply, such as a demolitionist-based kit. Also, is the coding possible to create directed projectiles? A technique used in a different game created bullet projectiles at the explosion base via scripting. Again, I'm not a coder so I'm not familiar with the engine here.

6) White Phosphorus/Incendiary rounds - Are there any plans to add this type of round to FFAR tubes placed on Littlebirds, or give WP/I grenades to troops? The WP rounds on LB's can also be used for target marking. I think a good idea is to give a LB or other scout helo some smoke FFAR's to mark units, and serve their scouting roles more accurately than just using the Q-spot. This would add realism to the game in many aspects.

7) What is the current purpose of the Merlin's ramp being lowered? Does it serve a function at present, or is it awaiting integration of a future feature?

8 ) Does the present game code allow for base model changes mid-game? Not animations, but actual model changes. For exmaple, if a vehicle's hitpoints fall below 50%, can it be coded to allow the model to change to another model, such as a semi-damaged version? If this is possible, I have some ideas that relate to a similar technique from a different military sim which would make possible some methods that are currently thought imspossible in PR.

Again, if a topic exists with the above suggestions, I am not looking for a flame post or someone stating "it's already been mentioned, dude". I would like someone with experience in this forum to link me the actual topic which relates to the above so that I may continue posting in the correct topic. If such a topic does not exist yet, then please feel free to comment on it here. Thanks.

[Swe_Olsson]

5 - Claymores should return in the future

7 - Pretty much showoff, but it can be useful in some situations

4 - In war i dont think that has a big matter

[Ninja2dan]

1. Mortars are WIP, and may be seen in next release. Search for Mortars, so you'll find out.

8. I remember seeing a post where Dev's stated that model can only have two stages, full shape and destroyed. However you can disable tank tracks, and turrets. Tracked vehicle is easy to spot, but it doesnt show any other difference in model and it's texture. And if I remember correctly, disabling certain parts of the vehicle is not based on damage, its based on luck.

I'm not really talking about stages, but actually changing the physical unit on the map. This means an instant despawn of that unit and immediate respawn of a different unit, replacing the player in the same seat he was in prior and keeping the unit along the same pathway. This was done with OFP for various purposes.

Another example that might help explain the intent is for the simulated airlifting of vehicles. For example, the Merlin is on the ground and someone drives a Humvee up the ramp. In OFP the engine allowed you to "lock" the vehicle in place, which actually changed the helo model to one that was similar yet showed the Humvee inside bolted down. This was done because of the vehicle inside was not stable in flight, and would bounce all over. The second model was a different helo, just modelled and textured with the humvee inside. When you chose to land and release the vehicle, it then respawned the original helo and Humvee as they were before the switch. In essence, this simulated airlift while working around the fact that vehicles can't actually be carried inside another.

It would require a new helo be designed with multiple models, such as a Chinook empty, and with the various cargo options. Even if only one vehicle type was limited to carry, therefore only requiring two models (one without it and one with), it would provide realistic simulation of airlifting a vehicle.

Again, I'm not sure if this engine supports such ability. That's why I'm asking. It was a pretty ingenious way of working around the problem in that game, so I am curious if such a workaround is possible here.

[Doom721]

thats an interesting approach at vehicles in helicopters, but the amount of work required to make a new model of the merlin with a landrover.... or say some US counterpart chopper ( I forget... the flying boat with wings... ) with a humvee.

To be honest, I don't know if you can do that in the BF2 engine, but hell thats a different way of approaching it

[Ninja2dan]

The process is not as difficult for the modelling actually. You just need to open the models for both existing items, combine the two, do a little fine-tuning, and you're done. The hard part is coding it into the game for the swap of models, if that's even possible in this engine. In OFP it was scripted in, and BF2 doesn't seem as advanced on the abilities for customization.

[Ninja2dan]

Any further suggestions about the above-listed topics, especially links to other relavent threads, would be greatly appreciated.

I'd also like to hear more about the model-swapping option in this engine. Any game coders have comments?

[Swe_Olsson]

I'm going to be very nice and do the searching for you now but really it isnt that hard to "Search" for something such as Bradley, or Claymores etc?

Here's a thread about Bradley: https://www.realitymod.com/forum/usa-ap ... ht=Bradley

Claymore Thread: https://www.realitymod.com/forum/claymo ... t=Claymore

No fly zones is pretty much pointless in warfare

Artillery's of numerous kinds has been suggestion alot before

Destructeble cities would be fairly nice, but I dont belive were gonna see alot of that unless its a very small town as i suppose it brings down the performance alot

[Ninja2dan]

I'm going to be very nice and do the searching for you now but really it isnt that hard to "Search" for something such as Bradley, or Claymores etc?

Here's a thread about Bradley: https://www.realitymod.com/forum/usa-ap ... ht=Bradley

Claymore Thread: https://www.realitymod.com/forum/claymo ... t=Claymore

No fly zones is pretty much pointless in warfare

Artillery's of numerous kinds has been suggestion alot before

Destructeble cities would be fairly nice, but I dont belive were gonna see alot of that unless its a very small town as i suppose it brings down the performance alot

I appreciate the help. As I mentioned in my first thread, I HAVE done quite a lot of searching on all of the listed topics, most of it is just repeats of the same garbage and none of them really have the answers I'm looking for.

The Bradley thread you listed was nothing. They didn't discuss jack other than "this has already been suggested". Any relevant threads before that are either the same thing, or they are more of an arguement about off-topic stuff. I have yet to find an actual Bradley topic that covers if they will or will not be added in the future. If they will be added, there are no topics with updates on them. The DEV thread which I did find and post in states they are adding US Army to 0.7, so hopefully we will see a Bradley variant around the time that update is released.

The claymore thread again was more complaining of WHO should get such a device and not much on if it will be back in or how it will function (damage, killzone, employment procedure, etc). Hopefully I will see a reply to my comment there soon.

No-fly zones DO have their roles in modern warfare under a few mission scenarios that I have run before. These can include operations "behind enemy lines", or one of countless situations. Trust me, I have a purpose for the question. I will wait for someone to give me a solid answer on if it is possible or not, and I think you will be surprised when you see the result.

Artillery topics are many, but none that I have seen supply the information that I seek. Only a couple posts out of literally THOUSANDS were made by someone with any actual military artillery experience, and not to be rude but many of the artillery suggestions are weak or too much like the vBF2 artillery which was totally unrealistic. And as stated there, I am not suggesting it again, I am only asking for feedback from DEVS on the status of it or plans of future implementation.

Regarding your comment about destructable cities, does that mean you are familiar with the modelling or coding of them? My question is trying to find out if they do or do not cause extra lag, which you state they would. If they don't have a major hit on map performance, I'd like to know if anyone is working further on more than what we already see in game.

Please don't take any of these comments as a flame or insult, as I do appreciate your comments and feedback. But also know I am not a kid and I have used the search feature already. It would help greatly if the "Already Suggested" thread could give more links to the appropriate topics, filtering out all the locked threads or garbage.

As a developer for another military simulation, my goal here is to assist in making this mod better. I am trying to get a heads up on what is already being worked on and the progress of those items, and to offer my help as the developers here see useful.

[jerkzilla]

While this may or may not be a good enough reason to bump, on point number 8 of the original post, as mentioned before, it's very likely impossible to introduce a "damaged" vehicle model in between full health and destroyed. BUT, if you shoot a small caliber weapon at a tank, it leaves a mark (like wallmarks). I doubt the existence of an equivalent for a large caliber hit, like a 120mm round, and I run the game with textures maxed, on which the dent mark's presence may or may not depend. This could be a visual to go with the damage model already present in game. Or it may just lag the game.

[Ninja2dan]

While this may or may not be a good enough reason to bump, on point number 8 of the original post, as mentioned before, it's very likely impossible to introduce a "damaged" vehicle model in between full health and destroyed. BUT, if you shoot a small caliber weapon at a tank, it leaves a mark (like wallmarks). I doubt the existence of an equivalent for a large caliber hit, like a 120mm round, and I run the game with textures maxed, on which the dent mark's presence may or may not depend. This could be a visual to go with the damage model already present in game. Or it may just lag the game.

As mentioned in one of my other posts, the purpose is not to actually show a "partly damaged" version. The reason I would like to know if it's possible to change complete models mid-game is to replicate a method that we used as a work-around for airlifting vehicles in another sim.

I'm sure many players of PR are familiar with OFP. Back in the earlier days of OFP people thought that airlifting was impossible, for the same reasons as in PR. If you have an aircraft such as a Chinook on the ground and you drive a humvee into the back, it will usually park just fine. But if the Chinook starts to move even a little bit the humvee will start bouncing around inside it and eventually cause both to explode.

As a workaround, there were two models of the Chinook made. One was without any cargo inside, and another was made with a dummy humvee modelled in the cargo area. When the humvee was close enough to the cargo section, an option was made available to "lock down" the vehicle. Via scripting, both of the vehicles were removed from the world and replaced with the single model of the Chinook with cargo intact. The Chinook could then fly around as normal because it was actually just one entity, just a different model. Once on the ground again another option to "release" the cargo was available, after which a humvee was spawned just behind the cargo area and the Chinook was once again replaced, this time with the empty model.

This lead to the perfect simulation of airlifting cargo, and the impossible was now made possible. It required several different secondary models of the Chinook to be made, each with a different type of cargo modelled inside. This was all possible due to the open scripting abilities of OFP. I am not familiar with the coding in BF2, so I am not sure if it's possible here. I was hoping that a coding genius might be able to tell me if a similar method might be possible for PR, and if so maybe a modeller could use this knowledge in the future. People want airlifting, and this would be the only possible method.

[Brummy]

No Fly zones are possible, just look at the main airfields of Kashan, Helos can't enter them.

[Ninja2dan]

No Fly zones are possible, just look at the main airfields of Kashan, Helos can't enter them.

I haven't tried it yet, but in those same areas are ground troops and land vehicles still able to operate inside? Or do they cause the death over time effect to any enemy element?

[jerkzilla]

D'oh :d uh:
My apologies, I had read the thread a few hours before and when I posted I thought the actual "vehicle in vehicle" idea was a different point than 8.
Again, sorry for the pointless bump.
The dome of death at Kashan applies for helicopters and ground troops but fling with a jet through the same space is fine, most likely for letting ground attack planes bomb the airfield.